[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35126-35131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17169]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0466; FRL-8932-5]


National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Central Wood Preserving 
Company Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) region 6 is 
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Central Wood 
Preserving Company Superfund Site (Site), located in East Feliciana 
Parish, Louisiana, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, 
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, 
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published 
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Louisiana; through the 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality because EPA has 
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been 
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions 
under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective September 18, 2009 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 19, 2009. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2009-0466, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions 
for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (214) 665-6660.
     Mail: Laura Stankosky, Remedial Project Manager (RPM) 
(6SF-RL), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7525.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0466. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.

Docket

    All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard 
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    U.S. EPA, Region 6, by appointment in the 7th Floor Reception Area, 
1445 Ross Ave. Dallas, TX 75202-2722, (214) 665-7525, Monday through 
Friday 9 a.m. to 4 p.m; Audubon Regional Library Clinton Branch, 12220 
Woodville Street, Clinton, LA 70722 (225) 683-8753 Monday through 
Thursday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m, Friday 9 a.m. to 3 p.m, and Saturday 9 a.m. 
to 1 p.m; Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Galvez 
Building, 602 North Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, (225) 219-5337 
Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Stankosky, Remedial Project 
Manager (RPM) (6SF-RL), ([email protected]) U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency,

[[Page 35127]]

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 
665-7525 or toll-free (800) 533-3508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of 
the Central Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site (Site) from the 
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 
CFR part 300, which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, 
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of 
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). 
As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL 
remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions 
warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, this action will be effective September 18, 2009 unless EPA 
receives adverse comments by August 19, 2009. Along with this direct 
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to 
Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If 
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period 
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this 
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the 
deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as 
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the 
deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the 
comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to 
comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting 
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using 
for this action. Section IV discusses Central Wood Preserving Company 
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. 
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless 
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from 
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted 
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have 
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is 
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. Pursuant to CERCLA 
section 121 (c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure 
the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous 
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels 
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 
such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may 
initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted 
site if new information becomes available that indicates it is 
appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site 
deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL 
without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of Louisiana prior to developing 
this direct final notice of deletion and the notice of intent to delete 
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal 
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this 
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their 
publication today, and the state, through the [Enter state agency], has 
concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice 
of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of 
intent to delete is being published in a major local newspaper, [Enter 
major local newspaper of general circulation]. The newspaper notice 
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of 
intent to delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed 
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for 
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories 
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public 
comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of 
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective 
date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the 
deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the 
comments already received.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the 
Site from the NPL:

Site Location

    The Central Wood Preserving Company Superfund Site, EPA ID 
LAD008187940, is located in an unincorporated area in the southern 
portion of East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, approximately 25 miles 
north of Baton Rouge. The site is situated north and south of State 
Highway (SH) 959, about one mile east of Highway 67. The site consists 
of two distinct properties. The property on the north side of SH 959 
(``North Property'') was used as the main wood treatment process area, 
and the property on the south side of SH 959 (``South Property'') was 
operated as a raw lumber saw mill. The combined acreage of the North 
Property (10.03 acres) and South Property (7.05 acres) is approximately 
17.08 acres. A creek (historically and herein referred to as ``Unnamed 
Creek'') is located along the east-southeast side of both properties. 
This creek is intermittent near the site; when it has water, it flows 
south-southwest to intersect with Little Sandy Creek

[[Page 35128]]

approximately 1.5 miles south of SH 959.

Site History

    The facility operated from the 1950s to January 1, 1973, as Central 
Creosoting Company, Incorporated. During that time creosote was used 
exclusively as the wood preservative.
    On January 3, 1973, the facility was sold and began operating under 
the name Central Wood Preserving Company, Inc., and the use of creosote 
was discontinued. Wood preserving from that time onward was 
accomplished with Wolmanac, a solution of copper oxide, chromic acid, 
and arsenic acid (chromated copper arsenate, known as CCA). Throughout 
the facility's history, treated wood was distributed throughout the 
property for drying. The source of contamination is the result of 
spillage of creosote and Wolmanac on the site property over a period of 
40 years. The site is currently owned by the East Feliciana Parish. 
While the parish had originally planned to redevelop the property as a 
public park with recreational facilities, funding for development did 
not become available. The site is currently being used to stage 
hurricane wood and brush debris for Hurricane Katrina. This material is 
removed as disposal space is located.
    In November 1983, the Site was confirmed as a Resource, 
Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA) small quantity generator of 
hazardous waste consisting of CCA. Since that time, regulatory 
activities have included involvement by the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and EPA. In 1992, following a request by 
LDEQ, the EPA Technical Assistance Team (TAT) conducted a Preliminary 
Site Assessment. This assessment and subsequent more detailed site 
assessments and inspections conducted through 1995 indicated elevated 
levels of arsenic and chromium in soil and sediment, and asbestos 
fibers in insulation samples.
    An EPA Action Memorandum was issued on April 3, 1995. This 
memorandum provided for a Time-Critical Removal Action to address 
source control at the site. The EPA TAT initiated the Time-Critical 
Removal Action on April 12, 1995. During the removal action, several 
site structures, tank contents, and an area of contaminated surface 
soil near the main facility operations area (about 1,250 cubic yards 
[CY]) were removed from the site. The containment basin contents were 
also removed and the basin sandblasted and backfilled with soil. From 
July to December 1995, the EPA TAT conducted an Expanded Site 
Inspection (ESI) to gather data for Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 
documentation.
    In May 1999, the site was added to the National Priorities List 
(NPL) (May 10, 1999 (64 FR 24949)).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in 
1999. The RI and FS were completed in September and November 2000, 
respectively. Soil samples were collected during the RI and during site 
assessment/site inspections from both the North and the South 
Properties. Results of the analyses conducted during the course of the 
various investigations, including the RI, indicated that the most 
significant contamination was from arsenic, chromium, copper, and 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil and sediment. Analysis 
of the distribution and concentrations of chromium and copper indicated 
that the occurrence of these compounds corresponded well with the 
occurrence of arsenic. The highest concentration of PAH contamination 
was observed in the vicinity of the former process area and drainage 
way leading to the Unnamed Creek. On the South Property, creosote was 
limited to the drainage along the eastern property border. In the 
Unnamed Creek, both sediment and surface water were sampled. Arsenic 
contamination was found in sediment up to a depth of 1.5 feet in 
various discrete hot spots. Some creosote-related constituents were 
also detected.
    Ground water evaluation performed during the RI indicated the 
shallow 10 feet bgs ground water zone is not laterally continuous 
beyond the former process area and drainage way, and does not 
demonstrate significant volumes of water (one of three wells installed 
in this zone did not generate enough water to sample). No site 
contamination was found in the ground water encountered at 55 to 65 
feet bgs, additionally this ground water demonstrates capacities that 
are borderline at best for meeting Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality's (LDEQ's) 2B classification for potentially 
potable ground water, and ground water is not used from within this or 
any other zone in the vicinity of the site.
    A baseline risk assessment, including an ecological assessment, was 
completed in September 2000, which estimated the probability and 
magnitude of potential adverse human health and environmental effects 
from exposure to contaminants associated with the site assuming no 
remedial action was taken.
    As outlined in the ROD, Risk Characterization results were as 
follows:
    For the North Property, Cancer risk for trespassers, future adult 
residents and future construction workers were above acceptable levels 
and non-cancer risks for trespassers, future adult and child were above 
the acceptable levels
    For the South Property, Cancer risk for future adult residents and 
future construction workers were above acceptable levels and non-cancer 
risks for future construction workers and future adult and child were 
above acceptable levels
    For sediment/soil in Segment 1 of the Unnamed Creek, Both the 
cancer risk and non-cancer risk for the recreational youth was above 
acceptable levels. The downstream segments of the unnamed creek did not 
have risk above acceptable levels
    Ecological Risk Assessment. Contaminants of Concern (COCs) were 
arsenic, copper, and chromium. The results of the baseline ecological 
risk assessment on the North and South properties and the Unnamed Creek 
indicated that: (1) There was minimal risk to the terrestrial and 
riparian wildlife target receptors, and (2) there was risk to the 
benthic receptors. A 14-day Hyallela azteca bioassay, benthic surveys 
and sediment chemistry, indicated that the observed mortality in the 
bioassays is not attributable to site related contamination, and the 
low diversity of benthic organisms in the Unnamed Creek may be a result 
of limited physical habitat. Therefore, the final conclusion by the 
Agency is that by addressing the arsenic levels as per the human health 
risk assessment, the copper will be also addressed, thereby addressing 
the ecological risk.

Selected Remedy

    The Record of Decision (ROD), signed April 5, 2001, set forth the 
selected remedy for the site soils and sediments as removal and Low 
Temperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD) on-site, with off-site 
stabilization and disposal of removed soils, institutional controls and 
ground water monitoring.
    The ROD also established Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the 
North and South Properties and the Unnamed Creek. The RAOs for the 
North and South Properties are to prevent human ingestion of, dermal 
contact with, or inhalation of soil and sediments and human contact 
with structure/debris containing/contaminated with COCs at 
concentrations which pose an excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) greater 
than 1 x 10-\6\ or which have a HI of greater

[[Page 35129]]

than 1 (based on a residential use scenario). The RAOs for the Unnamed 
Creek are to prevent human ingestion of, dermal contact with, or 
inhalation of sediment contaminated with chemicals of concern at 
concentration levels which pose an ELCR greater than 1 x 
10-\6\, or which have a HI of 1 or greater (based on a 
recreational use scenario). In addition, both the North and South 
properties and Unnamed Creek have RAOs for ground water to prevent 
human ingestion of water which contains COCs exceeding non-zero maximum 
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) 
where the corresponding MCL is zero in ground water at the 60 foot 
aquifer.
    Prior to remedy implementation the site required activities 
including: Grubbing; staging for contaminated soils; asbestos 
abatement; building demolition and disposal of materials; and removal 
and disposal of debris piles.
    The four major components of the selected remedy for soils/
sediments included:
     Excavation of surface and near-surface soil/sediment that 
exceeded remediation goals
     Thermal desorption of excavated soil/sediment that exceeds 
Land Disposal Restriction
     Disposal of excavated soil/sediment
     Backfilling and revegetation
    In addition to these components for soils remediation, the site 
would also require:
     Inspection
     Ground water Monitoring
     Institutional Controls/Deed Restrictions
    The purpose of the response actions conducted at the Site was to 
protect public health and welfare and the environment from releases or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances from the site. Potential 
exposure to affected soil, ground water, surface water and sediment was 
determined to be associated with human health risks higher than the 
acceptable range. The primary threats that the Site posed to public 
health and safety were direct contact with on-site waste material and/
or the transport of these materials and/or potential hazardous 
constituents and/or air emissions to nearby populated areas by surface 
runoff, severe flooding, or disruption of waste areas. This threat was 
minimized with the Time-Critical Removal Action which only addressed 
source control (i.e., removal of on-site tanks/vessels containing 
hazardous substances and the removal of the soil surrounding these 
tanks). Contaminated soil and sediment outside the main process area 
were not addressed during the removal action.

Response Actions

    A Remedial Design (RD) to define the implementation of the remedy 
for the Site was completed by EPA in May 2002. The RD described in 
detail the components of the selected remedy identified in the ROD.
    EPA began the Remedial Action (RA) in November 2003 with excavation 
and LTTD completion in September 2004. Soil and sediment were excavated 
from arsenic-only and arsenic-PAH areas and stockpiled separately. 
Arsenic-only soil/sediment was excavated, staged in 300 cubic yard 
stockpiles, sampled to verify compliance with land-disposal regulations 
(LDRs), and transported off-site for disposal. Arsenic-PAH contaminated 
soil/sediment was excavated, stockpiled for drying and/or mixed with 
lime, treated in LTTD unit, staged in approximately 300 CY stockpiles, 
sampled for PAHs and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) 
arsenic and chromium to verify compliance with applicable LDRs, and 
transported off-site for disposal. Arsenic concentrations from post 
excavation sampling ranged from 3.2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 
6.3 mg/kg, all well below the remediation goal (RG) of 20 mg/kg.
    Benzo(a)anthracene was selected in the Remedial Investigation (RI) 
to illustrate the extent of PAH contamination as it was the organic 
constituent most frequently detected above the state screening criteria 
in use that time. Benzo(a)anthracene sampling results ranged from 0.08 
mg/kg to 210 mg/kg with an average of 29.0 mg/kg. While the comparison 
showed exceedances for contaminants of potential concern (as identified 
in the RI) at eight of the 19 locations sampled, these exceedances were 
found in a limited area along a drainage pathway on the north property, 
north of SH 959.
    A subsequent investigation in response to Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita was performed by EPA in October 2005, to determine if the impact 
of the hurricanes affected the integrity of the remedy. This resulted 
in additional excavation and removal of approximately 980 cubic yards 
of soils that was performed in May 2006.
    As part of the selected remedy identified in the ROD, Institutional 
Controls were implemented in areas where contaminants were left in 
place in the subsurface at concentrations above the Remediation Goals. 
A Conveyance Notification was filed with the Clerk of Court on 
September 30, 2005, in accordance with CERCLA guidelines, which allows 
for unrestricted access in the upper three feet of soils, but provides 
restrictions under State law on disturbing or moving deeper soils 
(greater than five feet). Another component of the selected remedy was 
the implementation of a ground water monitoring system to monitor 
contaminant levels in the ground water. This component of the selected 
remedy has ceased. Ground water was to be monitored to ensure that 
wastes left in place do not affect the ground water because soils with 
organic contamination would be left in place in the subsurface (greater 
than 5 feet below ground surface [bgs]). The ROD required that ground 
water samples would be collected on an annual basis, but the sampling 
frequency may be modified if there are statistically significant 
changes in ground water sample concentrations.
    Nine ground water monitoring wells were installed during the RI. 
The only ground water encountered during the RI was that observed in 
shallow soil under the drainage pathway (-10 ft bgs), and that observed 
in the -65 ft bgs aquifer. Three wells were installed at 10 ft bgs 
along the drainage pathway to check for free-phase creosote migration; 
these wells accumulated some water (only two accumulated enough for 
sampling). The only exceedances of chemicals of potential concern were 
found in the monitoring wells installed in the shallow ground water 10 
feet bgs beneath the drainage pathway where most of the surficial 
creosote-related contamination remained. Non-aqueous phase liquids were 
not found in the onsite wells during the RI. However, approximately 0.2 
feet of a dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) was detected in shallow 
site monitoring well, MW-S3E2, and a trace was detected in shallow 
monitoring well, MW-S2E2, during RD data collection activities in 
November 2001.
    Ground water evaluation performed during both the RI and RA 
indicated the shallow 10 feet bgs ground water zone is not laterally 
continuous beyond the drainage pathway, and does not demonstrate 
significant volumes of water (one of three wells installed in this zone 
did not generate enough water to sample). The ground water encountered 
at 55 to 65 feet bgs demonstrates capacities that are borderline at 
best for meeting LDEQ's 2B classification for potentially potable 
ground water, and ground water is not used from within this or any 
other zone in the vicinity of the site. Monitoring well abandonment 
began in late February 2004 and was completed in early March 2004, 
concurrent with the RA Site Preparation stage of the work.

[[Page 35130]]

The deepest site excavations for LTTD treatment took place in the area 
where chemicals of potential concern were found in the monitoring wells 
installed in the shallow ground water 10 feet bgs beneath the drainage 
pathway. Excavation likely removed the small amounts of DNAPL found 
during RD data collection. Existing monitoring well MW-S2E5 was left in 
place as originally planned, but the number of new monitoring wells was 
reduced from eight to one (MW-1 was installed in January 2005) based on 
the expectation that two monitoring wells would be sufficient for 
evaluation of potential migration to ground water based on the limited 
area of potential ground water contamination observed during site 
cleanup. A total of 8 (eight) of the monitoring wells installed during 
the RI were properly plugged and abandoned.
    After one year of ground water monitoring showing no screening 
level exceedances, these two remaining monitoring wells were removed by 
EPA (properly plugged and abandoned) at the request of LDEQ. EPA 
believes that limited ground water contamination is not likely to 
exceed screening levels. A Final Close-Out Report for the site was 
signed June 29, 2006.

Cleanup Goals

    As noted in the ROD, the RGs were calculated for surface soil/
sediment on the North and South Properties based on 1 x 
10-\6\ carcinogenic risk using adult and child resident and 
construction worker exposure scenarios. To be protective of both 
residents and construction workers, the lowest of the risk based 
concentrations was selected as the RG. The resulting arsenic RG for 
surface soil/sediment (0 to 3.0 feet bgs) was calculated as 0.03 parts 
per million (ppm). Since this concentration was lower than the 
background concentration, and could not be met, the arsenic RG was set 
at the background concentration of 20 ppm. This corresponds to a 
residential risk level of 1 x 10-\4\. The RGs calculated for 
the 3-5 feet bgs interval for the North Property were based on 1 x 
10-\5\ carcinogenic risk using a future utility worker 
scenario. The resulting arsenic RG for surface soil/sediment as 
calculated as 300 ppm. As noted in the ROD, the 1 x 10-\5\ 
carcinogenic risk was chosen because: (1) The area that requires action 
is a hot spot (hot spot is defined as a small area), and; (2) the 
probability that utility lines will be located in this exact hot spot 
is unlikely since the hot spot is located near the Unnamed reek.
    The RGs calculated for the Unnamed Creek were based on 1 x 
10-\5\ carcinogenic risk using a recreational youth and 
adult hunter scenario. As noted in the ROD, since the creek is located 
on several individual residents' property, recreational youth and adult 
hunter access to the creek are limited. Therefore, 1 x 
10-\5\ was used. The resulting arsenic RG was calculated as 
160 ppm.

Operation and Maintenance

    Because ground water monitoring wells are no longer present on-
site, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of a ground water monitoring 
network is no longer required. The O&M operations now required are 
maintaining the site such that soils greater than three feet bgs are 
not exposed. The parish ensures that site fencing is maintained while 
the site is being used for hurricane debris staging.

Five-Year Review

    The First Five-Year Review of the Site was completed in April 21, 
2009. Based on the information available during this first Five-Year 
Review, the selected remedy is performing as intended. The selected 
remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment in 
the short term. This determination is based on the results from treated 
waste and soil sampling and shallow ground water sampling. It is also 
based on the fact that wastes and contaminated soils have been removed 
from the site or treated through LTTD, and those wastes remaining, 
greater than five feet in depth, have been addressed with the 
implementation of institutional controls. For the remedy to remain 
protective in the long-term the site should not be used for staging of 
household waste/debris or treated wood timbers, the security fencing 
around the site should be maintained to prevent illegal disposal, the 
conveyance notice should be maintained, and contamination remaining 
below five feet must remain unexposed. The site security fencing is 
being maintained and the parish continues work to address issues of 
limited illegal dumping on the site.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in 
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 
U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for 
recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public 
in the information repositories.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from 
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in 
consultation with the State of Louisiana, has determined that all 
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, 
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Louisiana, through the 
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, has determined that all 
appropriate responses under CERCLA, other than maintenance of 
institutional controls and five-year reviews, have been completed. 
Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will 
be effective September 18, 2009 unless EPA receives adverse comments by 
August 19, 2009. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day 
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this 
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the 
deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to 
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the 
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There 
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water 
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 10, 2009.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as 
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.



[[Page 35131]]

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended under Louisiana by 
removing ``Central Wood Preserving Co'', ``Slaughter, LA''.

[FR Doc. E9-17169 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P